One reason that I distrust this sort of thing... I just don't trust people. Dictatorship is bad because it is a centralization of power. Look at Maoism, Communism or Fascism. Their most prominent unifying characteristic is centralization of power and the denial of individual rights.
There have been a lot of people who tried to acheive utopia by allowing one type of centralization of power or another, but eventually each of these power structures became corrupt.
Those sciences which have helped to displace orthodoxy and free individuals have been helpful. But even somthing as simple as controling the birth gender of children will help to hardwire cultural assumptions about gender relations (since most couples want a boy first and a girl second, and birthorder influences psychology)
I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
Just stop groping them, okay?
When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
I believe the need for sacrifice ended with the destruction of the temple.
I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states that he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
I'm not familair with that passage, but if you kill him on the sabath, I assume that's a violation of the sabath. Catch 22.
6. A friend of mine feels that, even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there "degrees" of abomination?
Yes, actually. Some are temporary. Some require taking a bath in a mikva. etc. I don't know the details, but the short answer is "yes." In regarding shellfish and homosexuality, both are described as "unclean" (that's a better translation than "abomination." Who uses that word any more? As long as we're translating, we might as well translate to somthing accessible)
I don't remember what consequences are described for eating shellfish. For homosexuality, it says "the practitioners blood will be upon them."
Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
Are you sure this isn't metaphorical? There are none so blind as those who will not see.
I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
Use a plastic football. Duh.
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them (Lev. 24:10-16)?
No, but it's fun.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
But... he hasn't claimed that. As a born again, Bush claims that there were many changes in the covenant after Jesus came. Much of Leviticus, which you quote, was invalidated by Jesus' coming according to Bush's religious beliefs. Some of the sexual laws were retained, though application has changed (particularly regarding divorce). And even before then, there were changes to the law, enacted by various rabbis. Some of these laws (such as Hillel's decision to allow lending based on the oral tradition, in violation of the written tradition) was one of the things that Jesus was arguing against. All religions have the capacity to change. Popes can make new decrees. Rabbis can reinterpret old text. Etc.
But then, you were making a joke and here I am giving a semi-serious reply.
Any blemishes on his character will be easily waved away as jealous competitors, not anyone with a serious grief.
Of course. Alexander of Macedonia is called "The Great" though he was a conquerer. Aberham Lincoln is known as having preserved the union despite the fact that the South voted to succeed. Qin (Sp?) is lionized for making the Hanzi the universal written language of China, despite being a conquerer. Many people were against the cost of the space program before it was spent but no historian is going to say that the money should have been spent on social services.
The winners write the history books, and the winners are almost always forgiven, with the benefits of their acomplishments noted and the costs often ignored. Whatever your feelings about Gates in particular, I think that praise from Historians is not the same as 'justice in our day.'
Sim evolution or sim body. Imagine a population of the Sims, crossed with civilization. Your population has fitness levels, genetic traits, percent of the population over 60, etc. testostrone levels, etc.
Over time, they would evolve based on nutrition and conditions.
It would have to be oversimplified a bit, of course.
Boring? Perhaps. But it's the most interesting way I can think of to present some really complex and obscure topics.
Makes sense for me. I was ADD in school. I used to need stress to get things done.
Of course, I'm better now that I'm older and I have a little more control over my diet.
It seems like a lot of kids who are ADD are intelligent. Probably because if you're ADD and stupid people don't feel the need to explain your failures.
Indians eat butter and milk from cows, and also use them as beasts of burden. They just don't slaughter them. This makes a lot of sense since you need animals to plow your field, but raising them for food typically consumes far more resources than simply plowing the field and eating the crop yourself.
from http://www.sociology101.net/sys-tmpl/bindiassacred cow/ Small, fast oxen drag wooden plows through late-spring fields when monsoons have dampened the dry, cracked earth. After harvest, the oxen break the grain from the stalk by stomping through mounds of cut wheat and rice. For rice cultivation in irrigated fields, the male water buffalo is preferred (it pulls better in deep mud), but for most other crops, including rainfall rice, wheat, sorghum, and millet, and for transporting goods and people to and from town, a team of oxen is preferred.
I don't know about weapons, honestly. I know Russia was owed 8 billion at the start of Gulf War II and this was part of Russia's reason for supporting Saddam. Not sure what the financial picture was at the end of Gulf War I. Russia recently forgave about half of that in exchange for being able to do business in the new Iraq.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/12/22/sprj. ir q.russia/
You could be right. According to the article, Iraq owed quite a bit more money to other countries.
I'm not defending a Saddam/Al Queada(sp?) alliance, per se. I'm saying that intelligence was exchanged between Iraqi politicos and Al Queada, and this information was passed on to Iraqi decision makers.
Or to use your analogy; it's like a middle manager of a company was involved with the KKK and discussed somthing that someone told him there at a board meeting.
Considering that people in rural areas still use animal power for most things, why not this? I'm thinking maybe a few oxen used to drive a generator or somthing along those lines. Considering that the technology you can purchase for an hour of work in many rural places is small compared to the animals you can purchase, at what point does stuff like generators running on ethanol, animal power, energy that can be locally produced using local materials, etc. become practical.
Problems with your bibliography make it very difficult to fact check what you've done. If you said that a source is from the april 24th 2004 edition of the New York Times, and it's from the 21st, then you haven't really cited a source at all.
It's not the fact-checker's job to figure out where a person got their information from.
I don't buy the notion that voicing an opinion is equivalent to editing together different clips to create a false impression or displaying altered campaign videos and other material from political targets as if they were unaltered. (This is from Bowling for Columbine. I haven't seen f911 yet, but Michael Moore seems to have developed a penchant for misleading. )
True, all facts are selective, but some selections are more deliberatly flawed or misleading than others and they deserve to be described as such.
Al Qaeda, esp bin ladin, has called for the downfall of Sadaam for about 10 years. They have never worked together. That is why Poppa Bush called for Sadaam to be left alone. He knew that Sadaam was keeping Al Qaeda at bay.
Hm? I thought it was because Russia was his ally (since Saddam owed Russia a tremendous amount) and Bush Sr. figured taking Baghdad would be too bloody, especially since the Iraqi millitary was stronger then.
There are links between people in the Baath party and Al- Qaeda. I'm not saying that Saddam has shaken hands with them. It does seem clear that information was exchanged.
Speaking as a person who usually votes "left" Michael Moore has become known for this junk.. He alters text and then displays it like it was an original document. He edits together people's words.
This is tantamount to lying in your bibliography, and this kind of routine sloppiness certainly disqualifies his work as any kind of 'documentary.'
I expect this kind of distortion of truth from the Republican party (considering all the misleading shit they put forward at their latest convention). Now Democrats have their own Rush Limbaugh. What's sad is that this type of tactic will probably be as effective for the "left" as for the right.
The change does not significantly alter the function of the comment. The simple fact that a company making voting machines is offering partisan support is enough of a condemnation. There's no question that that's what he was doing, and whether he was winking when he made the double entendre (an odd choice of words to begin with) is beyond me. This type of doublespeak is common in politics when a polititian wants to use code words so that part of his audience understands him and another part doesn't. Take Bush's speechs favoring 'crisis pregnancy centers,' i.e. places where women will be convinced not to possibly have abortions. People in the pro choice movement generally don't understand what he's saying, but the quid-pro-quo he's suggesting is obvious.
If you don't have damages, why would you complain? Why would it make the news?
The FBI was tracking MLK and even harrassing him. What about that?
What am I afraid of? At the worst, political blackmail on a large scale.
Everyone has somthing to hide. Imagine a scenario where those who go against the powers that be will be outed and exposed, just like in the Soviet Union. Everyone had a skeleton in their closet. In the USSR, it was only outed if you did the politically wrong thing. Milan Kundera's "The Unbearable Lightness of Being" has a nice description of this on a personal level near the end. It only has to happen if a person is likely to come into a position of power. Everyone else's files are just "insurance."
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, $18,500. And I'm cutting off my own hand here.
One reason that I distrust this sort of thing... I just don't trust people. Dictatorship is bad because it is a centralization of power. Look at Maoism, Communism or Fascism. Their most prominent unifying characteristic is centralization of power and the denial of individual rights.
There have been a lot of people who tried to acheive utopia by allowing one type of centralization of power or another, but eventually each of these power structures became corrupt.
Those sciences which have helped to displace orthodoxy and free individuals have been helpful. But even somthing as simple as controling the birth gender of children will help to hardwire cultural assumptions about gender relations (since most couples want a boy first and a girl second, and birthorder influences psychology)
That involves knitting, right?
I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
Just stop groping them, okay?
When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
I believe the need for sacrifice ended with the destruction of the temple.
I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states that he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
I'm not familair with that passage, but if you kill him on the sabath, I assume that's a violation of the sabath. Catch 22.
6. A friend of mine feels that, even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there "degrees" of abomination?
Yes, actually. Some are temporary. Some require taking a bath in a mikva. etc. I don't know the details, but the short answer is "yes." In regarding shellfish and homosexuality, both are described as "unclean" (that's a better translation than "abomination." Who uses that word any more? As long as we're translating, we might as well translate to somthing accessible)
I don't remember what consequences are described for eating shellfish. For homosexuality, it says "the practitioners blood will be upon them."
Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
Are you sure this isn't metaphorical? There are none so blind as those who will not see.
I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
Use a plastic football. Duh.
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the
whole town together to stone them (Lev. 24:10-16)?
No, but it's fun.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
But... he hasn't claimed that. As a born again, Bush claims that there were many changes in the covenant after Jesus came. Much of Leviticus, which you quote, was invalidated by Jesus' coming according to Bush's religious beliefs. Some of the sexual laws were retained, though application has changed (particularly regarding divorce). And even before then, there were changes to the law, enacted by various rabbis. Some of these laws (such as Hillel's decision to allow lending based on the oral tradition, in violation of the written tradition) was one of the things that Jesus was arguing against. All religions have the capacity to change. Popes can make new decrees. Rabbis can reinterpret old text. Etc.
But then, you were making a joke and here I am giving a semi-serious reply.
It's creator can disavow all liability for anything that may go wrong, and get away with it, like... I can't think of anything else like that!
A book?
Any blemishes on his character will be easily waved away as jealous competitors, not anyone with a serious grief.
Of course. Alexander of Macedonia is called "The Great" though he was a conquerer. Aberham Lincoln is known as having preserved the union despite the fact that the South voted to succeed. Qin (Sp?) is lionized for making the Hanzi the universal written language of China, despite being a conquerer. Many people were against the cost of the space program before it was spent but no historian is going to say that the money should have been spent on social services.
The winners write the history books, and the winners are almost always forgiven, with the benefits of their acomplishments noted and the costs often ignored. Whatever your feelings about Gates in particular, I think that praise from Historians is not the same as 'justice in our day.'
I knew I should have forwarded that chain letter.
Well, I'm not going to drink alcoholic beverages 3 meals a day.
Sim evolution or sim body. Imagine a population of the Sims, crossed with civilization. Your population has fitness levels, genetic traits, percent of the population over 60, etc. testostrone levels, etc.
Over time, they would evolve based on nutrition and conditions.
It would have to be oversimplified a bit, of course.
Boring? Perhaps. But it's the most interesting way I can think of to present some really complex and obscure topics.
Since alcohol isn't the cause of most of these effects, wouldn't this reccomend non-alcoholic beers and wines?
Ideally, you'd use yeast to make a vitamin drink, removing excess sugars/calories. You'd remove the alcohol. Then you'd drink.
Wine contains chemicals (possibly resveratrol, I'm not sure )
which act as lipase inhibitors, slowing the absorption of fat.
Makes sense for me. I was ADD in school. I used to need stress to get things done.
Of course, I'm better now that I'm older and I have a little more control over my diet.
It seems like a lot of kids who are ADD are intelligent. Probably because if you're ADD and stupid people don't feel the need to explain your failures.
Indians eat butter and milk from cows, and also use them as beasts of burden. They just don't slaughter them. This makes a lot of sense since you need animals to plow your field, but raising them for food typically consumes far more resources than simply plowing the field and eating the crop yourself.
d cow/
from http://www.sociology101.net/sys-tmpl/bindiassacre
Small, fast oxen drag wooden plows through late-spring fields when monsoons have dampened the dry, cracked earth. After harvest, the oxen break the grain from the stalk by stomping through mounds of cut wheat and rice. For rice cultivation in irrigated fields, the male water buffalo is preferred (it pulls better in deep mud), but for most other crops, including rainfall rice, wheat, sorghum, and millet, and for transporting goods and people to and from town, a team of oxen is preferred.
I don't know about weapons, honestly. I know Russia was owed 8 billion at the start of Gulf War II and this was part of Russia's reason for supporting Saddam. Not sure what the financial picture was at the end of Gulf War I. Russia recently forgave about half of that in exchange for being able to do business in the new Iraq.
. ir q.russia/
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/12/22/sprj
You could be right. According to the article, Iraq owed quite a bit more money to other countries.
I'm not defending a Saddam/Al Queada(sp?) alliance, per se. I'm saying that intelligence was exchanged between Iraqi politicos and Al Queada, and this information was passed on to Iraqi decision makers.
Or to use your analogy; it's like a middle manager
of a company was involved with the KKK and discussed somthing that someone told him there at a board meeting.
Considering that people in rural areas still use animal power for most things, why not this? I'm thinking maybe a few oxen used to drive a generator or somthing along those lines. Considering that the technology you can purchase for an hour of work in many rural places is small compared to the animals you can purchase, at what point does stuff like generators running on ethanol, animal power, energy that can be locally produced using local materials, etc. become practical.
I threw out my TV. Now I spend all my time posting on Slashdot. Heck, I don't even RTFA.
"There was no drogue chute or parafoil," said a JPL spokesman. "Under those condition, the Genesis capsule hit the ground at about 100 mph."
Anyone know why it was only going 100 mph?
Problems with your bibliography make it very difficult to fact check what you've done. If you said that a source is from the april 24th 2004 edition of the New York Times, and it's from the 21st, then you haven't really cited a source at all.
It's not the fact-checker's job to figure out where a person got their information from.
No it's not tantamount to lying in your biography
Bibliography, not biography.
I don't buy the notion that voicing an opinion is equivalent to editing together different clips to create a false impression or displaying altered campaign videos and other material from political targets as if they were unaltered. (This is from Bowling for Columbine. I haven't seen f911 yet, but Michael Moore seems to have developed a penchant for misleading. )
True, all facts are selective, but some selections are more deliberatly flawed or misleading than others and they deserve to be described as such.
Al Qaeda, esp bin ladin, has called for the downfall of Sadaam for about 10 years. They have never worked together. That is why Poppa Bush called for Sadaam to be left alone. He knew that Sadaam was keeping Al Qaeda at bay.
Hm? I thought it was because Russia was his ally (since Saddam owed Russia a tremendous amount) and Bush Sr. figured taking Baghdad would be too bloody, especially since the Iraqi millitary was stronger then.
There are links between people in the Baath party and Al- Qaeda. I'm not saying that Saddam has shaken hands with them. It does seem clear that information was exchanged.
Speaking as a person who usually votes "left"
Michael Moore has become known for this junk.. He alters text and then displays it like it was an original document. He edits together people's words.
This is tantamount to lying in your bibliography, and this kind of routine sloppiness certainly disqualifies his work as any kind of 'documentary.'
I expect this kind of distortion of truth from the Republican party (considering all the misleading shit they put forward at their latest convention).
Now Democrats have their own Rush Limbaugh. What's sad is that this type of tactic will probably be as effective for the "left" as for the right.
The change does not significantly alter the function of the comment. The simple fact that a company making voting machines is offering partisan support is enough of a condemnation. There's no question that that's what he was doing, and whether he was winking when he made the double entendre (an odd choice of words to begin with) is beyond me. This type of doublespeak is common in politics when a polititian wants to use code words so that part of his audience understands him and another part doesn't. Take Bush's speechs favoring 'crisis pregnancy centers,' i.e. places where women will be convinced not to possibly have abortions. People in the pro choice movement generally don't understand what he's saying, but the quid-pro-quo he's suggesting is obvious.
Wow. Never expected that on Slashdot. lol.
If you don't have damages, why would you complain? Why would it make the news?
The FBI was tracking MLK and even harrassing him. What about that?
What am I afraid of? At the worst, political blackmail on a large scale.
Everyone has somthing to hide. Imagine a scenario where those who go against the powers that be will be outed and exposed, just like in the Soviet Union. Everyone had a skeleton in their closet. In the USSR, it was only outed if you did the politically wrong thing. Milan Kundera's "The Unbearable Lightness of Being" has a nice description of this on a personal level near the end. It only has to happen if a person is likely to come into a position of power. Everyone else's files are just "insurance."